What's better - a 2.1 from Oxbridge or a first from Aston?

It depends on the individual.

When I graduated from Aston in 2010 I was the top student in the entire university. Not just in my subject, but across ALL subjects. I averaged well over 80%. I then went on to blitz MSc Economics at the University of Bristol and now I'm doing a PhD.

Reasons I went to Aston: I had a rough time at college and didn't work very hard in my A levels at all (only got ABBB), and I also needed to stay in Birmingham for family reasons.

Is someone who got a 2:1 from Oxford or Cambridge better than me?! Definitely not. But it completely depends on the individual, which is why employers conduct interviews instead of just hiring on the basis of the CV alone.

This is a difficult debate.

Aston is a decent university. I'd say top 30 1994 group material, and a First Class degree from there will hold you in good stead. But I'd probably take a 2:1 from Oxbridge over it, just purely on a personal gut instinct.

But if we are to talk about Top 10ish Russell Group universities, such as Durham, Bristol, York, Nottingham etc, I'd rather a First from there than a 2:1 from Oxbridge as to go to one of them and get a First is really hard (although not quite as hard as Oxford) and I just feel you'd stand out more.

Tough one really, but that is my balanced answer.

I think any RG uni would stick you on a 'par'.


Posted from TSR Mobile

What? There are a lot of duffers in the RG you know, maybe you attend one of them ?

a 1st from Bham, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Queen Mary, QUB, Cardiff, Glasgow, Nottingham, Southampton, York = a 2.1 from Oxbridge ?

LOL I don't think so.

Some of the candidates rejected from Oxbridge have that though. Candidates at the universities you talked about have those grades. My brother has all the A's and A*s and was rejected from Oxford. That's the key for me. There will be people dotted around the top 20/30 universities in the UK that have the same grades as Oxbridge candidates.

A First at Manchester is a very good degree. I'd argue that is better than a 2:1 from Oxford, and demonstrates a stronger academic standard. Manchester is just as good as Bristol or Warwick.

What? There are a lot of duffers in the RG you know, maybe you attend one of them ?

a 1st from Bham, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Queen Mary, QUB, Cardiff, Glasgow, Nottingham, Southampton, York = a 2.1 from Oxbridge ?

LOL I don't think so.

NO an Oxbridge 2.1 is still better than all of the above

Err.. NO

Not really tbh. But it's not hugely relevant - my main point is asking for grounds to believe imperial maths when, from personal experience, it isn't all that.

And FWIW, I would be surprised if most imperial lecturers didn't think the Cam course was good. Because it is. Almost objectively.



Yeah, I was actually talking about people who do know about their subject matter. But only essentially to back up my own opinion from experience, to someone who doesn't seem to have any. I'd happily chat about the actual merits, but the problem with that is that it's self evident to anybody who's seen enough.

Unrelated to this, but the fact that a lot of Warwick and Imperial academics are ex-Oxbridge tells its own story.

And if you've still missed it, my point is that imperial maths isn't that good. I've seen a lot of their past papers, and Oxbridge is definitely harder, and I have fair reason to believe Warwick is too. That's about it.

Edit; if you're not being facetious, and do know people who think 1+1=3, I suggest you meet new people.



Highly pretentious? No. If untrue, it might be arrogant. As it is, it's essentially true. Theoretical physics grads from Cam have ended up on the hardest maths courses going, relatively regularly for my mind. Also, from what I recall, the only UK physics grads considered worth anything in Europe are oxbridge, imperial, and maybe a couple others (as someone not interested in doing physics past school, I didn't check). So clearly Cam is considered up there.



Cracking. Immediately deciding you're the final word on 'real uni experiences', feeling you know what's needed for banking (how many bankers do you know personally, by the way?), and comparing the social lives of two universities when you've only been to one of them. Fantastic.

Academically, the answer is Oxbridge, by a mile. I found that my first year papers for Cambridge maths were more difficult than masters level papers at KCL, for example.

Unfortunately, though, many employers use automated application systems and processes that don't distinguish between universities. The problem comes when they ask for a 2:1 and above in a subject, and you have a 2:2 from Oxbridge. You're immediately excluded, when people with less ability are immediately included.

There isn't though is there. You are talking roughly the same standard of teaching, and a university slightly more prestigious. So you can't hardly say there is a lot of difference? For example many of my lectures at one of those universities you listed are Oxbridge/London educated themselves so they are pretty much teaching you what they were taught themselves.

I sense a hint of snobbery in your tone. Either you are at Oxbridge/London and you are horribly misguided as to believing your degree guarantees you a job, or you failed to get in and are upset at the other universities because you feel you are too good for them.

No it isn't. A First from a top university is better than a 2:1 from Oxbridge. It is probably a tad harder to get, and a First Class honours degree really makes you stand out.

Yes actually. Which university do you attend?

How do you define good? If hard = good then, despite some readers will have a go at me for constantly bringing this up, this HK maths paper should mean HK's students are among the world's best, thought still some way behind mainland China, wth the impossibly hard Gaokao, where even Oxbridge undergrads struggle with it:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52489790/al-pure-2011

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/10010196/China_exam_season_questions_to_make_you_quail/

Although this is all my experience of one particular course / exam, I'm inclined to think it applies somewhat to other subjects at Oxbridge because of discussion with people that study those subjects.

There isn't though is there. You are talking roughly the same standard of teaching, and a university slightly more prestigious. So you can't hardly say there is a lot of difference? For example many of my lectures at one of those universities you listed are Oxbridge/London educated themselves so they are pretty much teaching you what they were taught themselves.

I sense a hint of snobbery in your tone. Either you are at Oxbridge/London and you are horribly misguided as to believing your degree guarantees you a job, or you failed to get in and are upset at the other universities because you feel you are too good for them.

No it isn't. A First from a top university is better than a 2:1 from Oxbridge. It is probably a tad harder to get, and a First Class honours degree really makes you stand out.
Yes actually. Which university do you attend?

Definitely not.


[*]Lecturers aren't as contrained to syllabuses as in other universities

I agree wholeheartedly because though I have never studied at Oxbridge - one of my biggest criticisms as a mature student is precisely that most unis simply follow a cookie-cutter type syllabus that deprives the student of the benefit of true scholarship which involves in depth inquiry rather than a broad sweep of cursory factiods.

It's quite ironic that you're criticising some universities for 'cookie-cutter' courses when you have a very indistinguishing, 'cookie-cutter' view of non-Oxbridge universities and the content and assessment of their courses.

Call it what you like but a I'd take a 2.1 from OXb rather than a 1st from any RG2 rubbish.

Obvious troll but what is RG2?

You are a self professed intellectual - use your imagination or you name a non OXbridge RG uni and I'll tell you if it is RG1 or 2

I don't recall professing myself to be an intellectual. Why don't you define your own created terminology?

All exams are externally regulated, so they are all standardised. It's just as difficult to achieve a 2:1 at Oxbridge as it is at Hallam or anywhere else.